Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T12:06:19.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Factorial Study of the Multiphasic, Strong, Kuder, and Bell Inventories using a Population of Adult Males

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Wm. C. Cottle
Wm. C. Cottle*
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a centroid factor analysis of the Multiphasic, Strong, Kuder, and Bell inventories using a population of 400 adult males, eight common factors dealing with aspects of personality as measured by these instruments were isolated. Seven of the factors were meaningful and one was a residual. This study indicates little overlap between the two personality and the two interest inventories. It would appear that factors found in these instruments measuring aspects of personality are dichotomous in nature and are not common to the two types of instruments included in this study. That is, two of the factors were common to the two personality inventories, and five of the factors were common to the two interest inventories.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 1950 , pp. 25 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © 1950 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Abstract of dissertation submitted at Syracuse University, January, 1949, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education.

References

Guilford, J. P. Factor analysis in a test-development program. Psych. Rev., 1948, 55, 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. Factor analysis and body types. Psychometrika, 1946, 11, 15–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strong, E. K. Jr. Vocational interests of men and women, Stanford: Stan-Univ. Press, 1943.Google Scholar
Darley, J. G. Clinical aspects and interpretation of the Strong vocational interest blank, New York: Psychological Corporation, 1941.Google Scholar
Kuder, G. F. Revised manual for the Kuder Preference Record, Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1946.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. Multiple-factor analysis, Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1947.Google Scholar
Terman, L. M. and Miles, C. C. Sex and personality, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1936.Google Scholar
Wittenborn, J. R. Mechanical ability, its nature and measurement. Educ. psych. Meas., 1945, 5, 241–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meehl, P. E. Profile analysis of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory in individual diagnosis. J. app. Psych., 1946, 30, 517–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brozek, J. and Erickson, N. K. Item analysis of MMPI scales in experimental starvation. J. cons. Psych., 1948, 12, 403–411.Google Scholar
Tyler, L. E. Relationships between Strong Vocational Interest scores and other attitude and personality factors. J. app. Psych., 1945, 30, 58–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gough, H. G. Diagnostic patterns on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. J. clin. Psych., 1946, 2, 23–36.3.0.CO;2-Y>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed